Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amount deposited before the High Court to establish bona fides while pursuing a one-time settlement proposal could be retained by the bank or had to be returned to the borrowers.
Analysis: The deposit was made only to show bona fides and was expressly directed to be treated as a deposit in the Registry of the High Court. Applying the principle that a secured creditor may proceed only against the secured assets identified in the notice and that a deposit made for a collateral procedural purpose is neither a secured asset nor a secured debt, the Court held that the bank had no right to appropriate or retain the amount. The Court also relied on the distinction between money kept with the tribunal or court registry and money in the bank's custody, and rejected any claim of lien over such deposit.
Conclusion: The amount deposited by the borrowers was refundable to them and could not be retained by the bank.
Final Conclusion: The borrowers were entitled to withdraw the deposited amount with accrued interest, and the High Court's direction permitting continued retention was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A deposit made only for a limited procedural purpose, and not in satisfaction of the debt, does not become a secured asset or secured debt and cannot be appropriated by the bank absent a lawful basis or consent.